• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 77 flight path

mudlark said:
I personally don´t give it any sway.
It´s just curious how close it is to the NOC path witnessed.
Who provided the stats to this software company?
In all the posts I´ve seen tonight there was very little counterargument explaining how this testimony could have been totally ****ed up to such proportions that all the witnesses were wrong. All of them.
Oh wait, another gem was to ´ignore them´ and another was that an impact was possible from NOC.
None of this testimony has been debunked or even discussed.
I personally won´t put faith in the word of an agency held up as proof of physical evidence. Or arguments based on incredulity.
Night.
Click to expand...

Do "independently verified testimonies" trump any "official story" reports?
 
mudlark said:
I was referring to the plane parts that were ´blown all over the place´ not the unidentified parts that were inside the building.
Click to expand...
the parts were identified (thats how i know they were engines and landing gear, etc)

and you expect anything other than lightweight parts to be "blown all over the place" ?


ETA: also, you didnt answer my question on why the conspirators chose a method of carrying out their plan that would result in the attack not looking like it should.
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. Nor that of the RADES.

At 540mph the plane would have been a blur between the Navy Annex and the facade.
Witnesses from all angles placed the plane at a bank. That it took at least 10-15 seconds from its appearance at the Annex to the fireball.
Penny Elgas said that the plane ´made the slightest turn´ just in front of her on the HOV lanes.
At 540mph? Impossible.
The ANC witnesses and Boger describe a bank the whole way down to route 27.
Even Walter describes a bank.
The plane is said to have ´wobbled´ and the pilot ´struggled with it´ from Route 27 to the facade.
You can choose to ignore the NOC witnesses if you wish but to ignore an even larger number on these testimonies is ridiculous in the extreme.

If the plane was travelling at 540 mph that equals 250 metres a second.
From the plane´s arrival on Route 27 at lightpole 1 to the facade is 300 metres exactly.
So are you telling me that in just over a second the plane reached the facade?

Maybe you can look to FDR/RADES but Math beats that **** hands down.
Click to expand...


None of the above oddities, even to the degree they may be true trump the fact that the entire fuselage of Flight 77 (minus the aluminum consumed in the fire) and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and radar tracks and radar data show how and when it got there.
 
mudlark said:
Maybe because we would have seen what actually happens when a plane hits a building? Particularly a fortified building that had recent reinforcements?
What I do know is that the plane didn´t cause that damage from NOC.

What airplane parts were blown ´all over the place´? The photographs of lightweight sheets of aluminium on the lawn?
Click to expand...
That was an incredibly weak response. Were the conspirators TRYING to be risky when they carried out this "plot?"
 
mudlark said:
In all the posts I´ve seen tonight there was very little counterargument explaining how this testimony could have been totally ****ed up to such proportions that all the witnesses were wrong. All of them.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know what corroboration of evidence is. Testimony doesn't mean squat unless you can corroborate it with physical evidence. You can't corroborate testimony with no plane, unless you know where that plane is, and by your own admission, you don't know where it it went.

On the other hand, the rational one, you have testimony of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, corroborated by physical evidence such as DNA, plane debris and FDR. Get it? Or is this too hard for you?
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
If you have documentation on debris, DNA and bodies I´d gladly look at them.
If you are asking if there was oppurtunity for someone to plant anything as you say in ´broad daylight´, of course there was.
Click to expand...

Yup. The wreckage and bodies were flown in by plane, Flight 77.
 
mudlark said:
That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. ... Math beats that **** hands down.
Click to expand...
Lies. Zero problems with the FDR, you just say there were without presenting evidence; you point at the idiots at p4t who have not done anything as they "offer no theories".

Lie, there are many witnesses to the actual path.

Math, with the 11.2G wave your hand make up the numbers math of p4t, failure is complete.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary


If you fall for lies like CIT, what will keep you from falling for other fraud. CIT is a fraud, not recognizing that is self-critiquing.
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
By your reckoning do you believe the plane would have made far less damage at @350-400 mph?
The official story had the plane on a direct hit from SOC at 540mph.
Click to expand...

At 350 mph, the kinetic energy is less than half the kinetic energy at 540 mph. The fuel and resulting fire would have been about the same, although differences in kinetic energy would have affected the structure in ways that might have affected the fire.

mudlark said:
If it hit lightpoles on the way in. Then a generator trailer. Then how much force was left to actually puncture 94 metres in 8/10ths of a second?
Anybody?
Click to expand...

The energy lost to the light poles would have been negligible. The collision with the trailer involved more loss of energy, but even that had to have been small compared to the collision with the Pentagon. A glance at the damage caused by each collision shows why.

mudlark said:
That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. Nor that of the RADES.
Click to expand...

If you're saying ground-based RADES radar didn't detect any evidence of a flyover, and there are also no witnesses for the flyover path, then you should draw the obvious conclusion. If you're saying flight 77 wasn't tracked by RADES, or there are no witnesses for the path that matches the physical and FDR evidence, then you're badly mistaken.

mudlark said:
At 540mph the plane would have been a blur between the Navy Annex and the facade.
Witnesses from all angles placed the plane at a bank. That it took at least 10-15 seconds from its appearance at the Annex to the fireball.
Click to expand...

At least two separate ground-based radars recorded the last minute or so of flight 77, until the low-flying plane's radar return was lost among radar reflections from buildings. Those radar records are consistent with the 500+ mph speeds recorded by the flight data recorder. Based on that physical evidence, there were 4 to 5 seconds between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon impact.

mudlark said:
Maybe you can look to FDR/RADES but Math beats that **** hands down.
Click to expand...

It's okay to talk math here. The mathematics that has been posted so far suggests your theory would require extraterrestrial maneuverability and a SEP field.

mudlark said:
I personally won´t put faith in the word of an agency held up as proof of physical evidence. Or arguments based on incredulity.
Night.
Click to expand...

So your disbelief is sufficient to reject evidence (first sentence), but no one else's disbelief counts for anything (second sentence).
:rolleyes:
 
mudlark said:
By your reckoning do you believe the plane would have made far less damage at @350-400 mph?
The official story had the plane on a direct hit from SOC at 540mph.
If it was on a turn as many witnesses described it including witnesses who CIT haven´t included on their NOC list. If it was going much slower as testified by the 10-15 seconds to reach the facade. If it hit lightpoles on the way in. Then a generator trailer. Then how much force was left to actually puncture 94 metres in 8/10ths of a second?
Anybody?
Click to expand...
How much of a turn was 77 in? What was the turn radius? Do you understand this requires math, which p4t can't help you out? If you can't quantify your claims and back them up why are you posting hearsay and your google junk science?

Far less damage? You should have take physics in high school and college. The football coach taught physics at my high school, too bad you failed to take, or failed to gain knowledge at your chance to learn and understand.
Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon at over 483 KIAS, over 548 mph. The kinetic energy at impact was 2,470,000,000 joules. If p4t or CIT did math they would discover 350 mph impact would be 1,010,000,000 joules, over two time less energy. Do you do math and physics, or merely repeat failed ideas from idiots who are paranoid conspiracy theorist selling delusions on DVD, the terrorists loyalists at p4t and CIT?

The impact with lampposts were negligible. SEE!
77CrashTestBreakaway.jpg

Breakaway lampposts do not stop cars or aircraft.



77VDOTmast.jpg

Wingtip hit post. And cut up the tree next to this post. The wingspan is what, 124 feet. Oops, this is right where people next to 77 saw 77 right over their cars. Too bad your witnesses from CIT were how far away?

77WINGTIP.jpg

Wing tip from 77. Oops, evidence defeats the lies of p4t 11.2g failed math, and CIT moronic investigation summaries. I always thought only the dirt dumb neoNAZIs at p4t would fall for the tripe dished out by CIT.


Please tell us the turn radius for the delusional aircraft turns you posted.

Need help with the physics? You do, when you imply 77 knocking down the lampposts would reduce the impact energy, you suffer further delusions based on ignorance. Got physics?

IMG_1057b.jpg

If p4t and CIT could do math and physics, they could build the quad amp center channel from hell; alas, they make up numbers and spew delusions only a few fringe conspiracy minded fall for.

Or they could teach their grandkids to build sub-woofers using math!
keynansubwoofer2.jpg

What would this look like using Balsamo's 11.2G failed math?

Why are p4t and CIT unable to make rational conclusions? Got those turn radii for your NOC high G impossible turns yet? Do you have some evidence to back up your wild claims? Have you proved the DNA false? The FDR, can you explain any of your failed claims about the FDR? How did the education system of your country fail you?
 
Last edited:
I would pay to see you present your "evidence" in a court of law, mudlark. Seriously.
 
Given the NOC testimony? I would have to say the plane could NOT have hit the Pentagon. It doesn´t matter what I ´think´ on the matter.
If it couldn´t hit where did it go?
Click to expand...

This can be easily turned around on you--Given the SOC testimony and the testimony of those who saw it hit the Pentigon and the fact that NOBODY saw the plane go anywhere after the impact, it doesn't matter what we or you 'think' on the matter. If it couldn't have flown over where did it go? Into the Pentagon.
 
mudlark said:
You´re addressing the wrong person.
I´m here to talk about NOC.
This thread has taken a personal turn away from the topic.
I´ll come back when I see discussion of the topic back on track.
Click to expand...

Why do you contine to ignore the fact that CIT has never produced a witness that saw anyhting other than a 757 hit the Pentagon? Why do you continue to ignore that Craig and Aldo have this disturbing habit of threatening people? Yet you get all pissy that someone insults you here.
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
Domenic?? Is that my new name? It´ll do.

I asked for documentation yes.
I provided links and quotes from official reports which raised reasonable questions in my post. Hardly ´hearsay´.
The plane flew NOC. Corraborated on record. Verified.
NOC = No impact.


Another poster told me this was actually possible. Now THAT is magic.
Click to expand...

Don't you think AA would have figured out that it was not their aircraft then?
 
Last edited:
Give me better video, I cant even verify that is his view.

Yes from the positon far back in the room with a camera whip panning from one direction to the other, it does seem hard to see anything. But we cant tell what he could or could not have seen without better video now can we?]
Click to expand...

Here´s a still. Tell me if you can see the lawn. Tell me if you can see the approach to the lawn. Tell me how he saw through this building.
The cam positioning had to be from that angle to see the Sheraton clearly.
There is a bigass building blocking the view.
There is a red circle on it just in case you don´t know where it is.

vignolacircle-1.jpg


Why don´t you get in touch with Dawn Vignola to confirm the footage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom